As we previously discussed here, CAAF has previously granted law student amicus motions in a case where it rejected an amicus motion from counsel for a military death row inmate where, in the inmate’s counsel’s view, the facts of the case were similar to his client’s case. Today CAAF not only said it would accpet amicus briefs from law students in a case, but did so based on a tardy motion for amicus curiae briefing. Today’s Daily Journal notes that students from Indiana University School of Law Bloomington filed a “motion for leave to submit Amicus Curiae briefs belatedly” in U.S. v. Pack (a Crawford confrontation argument case). The Court granted the motion and allowed 10 minutes for oral argument.
While I do not begrudge law students the opportunity to make real arguments in real courts, might this also be a good opportunity to introduce law students to the practice of criminal law post-AEDPA? My first law student practice case was occasioned by the judge informing me that I had not filed a notice of alibi defense and any argument or witnesses about my client’s alibi would be excluded. Considering that another law student dumped the case in my lap less than a week before the bench trial, and after the alibi notice deadline (Ohio Crim R. 12.1), I didn’t exactly want to kill myself over it. But, I don’t think I will ever forget to file a notice pleading. Just a thought.
Anyone have any information on the two latest extraordinary writs to hit the Journal:
Misc. No. 08-8001/CG. Thomas A. MORTON, Appellant v. Captain Brian Judge, USCG, Military Judge and United States, Appellees. CCA 003-07. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.
Also, anyone with gouge on this one from Oct. 11:
Misc. No. 07-8022/AR. G. Jerome HURLEY, Appellant v. Lieutenant Colonel John M. Head, Military Judge, and United States, Appellees. CCA 2007-0865. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, Appellant’s motion to stay proceedings, and Appellant’s motion to suspend rules and to supplement the record, it is ordered that said motion to suspend rules and to supplement the record is hereby granted; and that said motion to stay proceedings and that said writ-appeal petition are hereby denied.